Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> Ron Mayer wrote:
> > Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> >> Tom Lane wrote:
> >>> as having better system support for packages or modules or
> >>> whatever you want to call them; and maybe we also need some
> >>> marketing-type....
> >>
> >> ...re-raise the question of getting rid of contrib...
> >> "The PostgreSQL Standard Modules".
> >
> > While renaming, could we go one step further and come up with a
> > clear definition of what it takes for something to qualify as
> > a module? In particular I think standardizing the installation
> > would go a long way to letting packagers automate the installation
> > of modules from pgfoundry.
> >
> > I think it'd be especially cool if one could one-day have a command
> >
> > pg_install_module [modulename] -d [databasename]
> >
> > and it would magically get (or verify that it had) the latest
> > version from pgfoundry; compile it (if needed) and install it
> > in the specified database.
> >
> > The closest analogy to what I'm thinking is the perl CPAN or ruby
> > gems.
> >
>
> Yes, and the CPAN analogy that has been in several minds, but it only
> goes so far. Perl and Ruby are languages - Postgres is a very
> different animal.
>
> We do in fact have some support for building / installing some
> modules in a standard way. It's called pgxs and it is used by quite a
> number of existing modules.
On Windows we also have the StackBuilder application which is used for
installation of binary modules.
//Magnus